Was it Right for Trump to Pull the US out of the Paris Agreement?

The grammar nazi that just used three incomplete sentences is criticizing me? That is rich. LOL F off loser.

 

Most of the people who vote dem are social misfits anyways, so they are really weird to begin with.

 

I do not take my medical doctors word as gospel. I couch that with my experience and research and understand that medicine is not an exact science. It is mostly educated guesses and trial and error which is why one should always get a second opinion on important diagnoses.

 

True, they're always just practicing.

Eeew, so touchy. Even cursing ad homs now. Must a struck a noive.

 

And we have the 2nd, 3rd, 200th, 300th opinion on climate change. And we have it from 97% of the scientists who have studied the issue. Will you go to 97 doctors to get an opinion?

https://www.livescience.com/topics/global-warming

While many view the effects of global warming to be more substantial and more rapidly occurring than others do, the scientific consensus on climatic changes related to global warming is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen between 0.4 and 0.8 °C over the past 100 years. The increased volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, and other human activities, are believed to be the primary sources of the global warming that has occurred over the past 50 years. Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate carrying out global warming research have recently predicted that average global temperatures could increase between 1.4 and 5.8 °C by the year 2100.

 

By studying the past. Instead of relying upon the simplistic denials and completely unsupported nonsense barked by a multitude of loudmouthed, easily irritated, armchair quarterbacks every day, scientists, such as those at NASA, actually do research and figure things out now and then.



In fact, if you're really interested, scientists explain the whole business very well (imho) here and here and here.

 

The chart says "For centuries", but it's really for many, many millennia as anyone can clearly see.

 

Who was doing the measuring 50,000 years ago?

 

Point of order! Point of order!

 

You've not heard of ice cores? Keep reading. It's in there.

 

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

 

If you actually read about this instead of following right wing hacks you would find this is not true

China is closing coal fired power stations
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-...ables-transform-climate-change-leader/8316660

 

And you are basing this opinion on................

 

Natural gas is a greenhouse gas. Far worse per volume than CO2. Leaks all over the place. Fossil fuels all suck. Interestingly, firewood is not a fossil fuel. Still, the particulate emissions tend to suck. Partly why I made a semi-portable rocket stove/furnace that burns both wood and coal with no visible smoke once warmed up.

 

That still doesn't change the fact that they are using half the the world's coal. They could cut their use in half and still be using more than twice as much coal as the US does.

 

At present but they have committed to the Paris Agreement which America has now pulled out of. The only ones screaming that we would have to give up our way of life overnight where right wing hacks - everyone else knew it would take time and effort - which is why the agreements have long time frames

 

First off Trump already said that the US would continue to reduce its emissions. The reason he pulled out was entirely so that the US was not footing the bill for other countries.

Secondly, we have been reducing emissions for years now as we shifted even more from manufacturing to service and management. That has NOTHING to do with the Paris accords. China is going to be increasing its CO2 emission for years and they will only think about reducing the the rate of increase in 2030. In less than 30 years they went from producing very little CO2 to producing as much as the US and the EU combined. How much worse is it going to be in another 13 years?

Did the fact that virtually every country on earth signed that agreement not raise any alarms for you. Go back and look at the list of signatories for the Kyoto and Copenhagen attempts and notice how much smaller that list was. The reason the Paris accords are so large is because they are meaningless and devoid of any enforcement mechanism. China could just say "Hey we tried but we decided its not in our best interests" in 2030 and nothing would happen. It is a ridiculously flimsy agreement which is why only two countries didn't bother to sign it.....and Syria is in the middle of a civil war so I can understand them having more important things to worry about.

This of course doesn't include India either which is expected to have its own explosion in energy usage in the near future. Don't blow smoke up my ass and tell me that the Paris accords were going to accomlish anything because they won't. Assuming the predictions are right then we get to look forward to rising sea levels, shifts in local climates and ocean acidification and all the other goodies and their is NOTHING we can do about it short of war.

The only good news is that some governments are ignoring idiotic environmentalists and nuclear is once again coming into the foreground again. Nuclear is our only hope at this point and it takes years to break ground and build them and even though China is investing heavily in them the US isn't because of the ****ing idiotic environmentalist retard movement.

 

Yes it was a good thing.

Progress doesn't "stop" globally or in the US just because of a stupid worthless, powerless international PR-stunt agreement anyways. The scientific community and philanthropy of the environment-friendly wealthy doesn't ever stop.

 

Same thing, isn't it? It's now accepted that the plates carrying the continents do move across the Earth's surface slowly.

 

It is a less dirty greenhouse gas than coal so it is a natural stepping stone. The market will continue to drive reductions in emissions so long as the market can continue to come up with more affordable alternatives....and sorry, we do not have enough trees to power everybody's electric and fuel needs. While trees are not a fossil fuel, they do sink CO2 and burning them releases that stored content.

 

Oh, it was such a contentious issue at the time though if you recall. The future of life on Earth hung in the balance. A nail biter if there ever was one. Just like Global Warming is today. Perfect analogy. Not.

Yeah, it's a good thing the Catholic Church failed to squelch Newton's highly unpopular approach to gravity. But Newton did things scientifically and provided compelling evidence to back his assertions. That's the difference.

 

Accusing coal of being a greenhouse gas now? How low will you go?

This too is an appeal to popularity. Again, devoid of evidence let alone logic. People were also manipulated into getting rid of electric trolley systems to promote use and ownership of individual, gasoline powered cars long ago. "The market" is a euphemism. It's people who actually decide things, "market" or none. And it's the greediest, devil may care, who push crap on others for personal profit alone.

You'd get more use out of those straw men if you tried burning them instead of just stabbing at them like an idiot.

 

On the off chance you are not just a poe, you might want to look at what Malthus predicted and why regarding trees and get back to me on the strawman thing.

 

Yes, the rich will surely save us. Always have!

 

Why Malthus Is Still Wrong